An Interesting No Limit Question

[David Sklansky]

I could've posted this question on our Poker Theory or No Limit forums but since this forum is now attracting some bigshots that don't post elsewhere, I thought I'd pose it here.

It is an elementary precept of limit poker that you should not bet a decent hand, head up, on the river, if you know you won't get called unless you are beaten (unless of course there is some chance that bet will make an even better hand fold).

But there is an exception to this rule in No Limit. There is a situation, not all that rare, where it is right to bet on the river even though there is no chance of getting a better hand to fold OR getting a worse hand to call. In other words if they call your bet you will lose. Actually there are two situations. One is when you feel it is worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand. But that is not what I am speaking of here. Littleshots are free to answer as well.

[Ulysses]

When your opponent is likely to bluff w/ a worse hand w/ a bet you can't call if you check.

[rory]

You can bet out on the river to stop your opponent from bluffing. Sometimes it is better to bet out a moderate amount even if you know you will be beaten if they call because if you check and they bet a larger amount you will not know what to do.

[Ulysses]

Another possible answer, btw, is a blocking bet. But I don't think that applies given this part of David's statement - "there is no chance of getting a better hand to fold OR getting a worse hand to call."

When you make a blocking bet (for example, a medium flush on a paired flushed board), there usually exists a chance that your opponent will fold a bigger flush or call w/ a smaller one.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I could've posted this question on our Poker Theory or No Limit forums but since this forum is now attracting some bigshots that don't post elsewhere, I thought I'd pose it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?

And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually there are two situations. One is when you feel it is worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand. But that is not what I am speaking of here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that counts as a reason then I could make up all kinds of bizarre edge cases. How about if my opponent frequently raises the river but always folds to a re-raise unless he has the nuts. Or I'm dying to show the table the ridiculously thin value bets I'm always failing with. Or I just heard the guy only has six months to live and I feel like throwing some expectation his way to boost his spirits.

I could take a stab at a serious answer but I'd rather make fun of the idea that there are exactly two answers to this question and one of them is "it's worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand."

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
If that counts as a reason then I could make up all kinds of bizarre edge cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is light on chips, you're a big stack, you have 5% of each other's action and don't want him to bust.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Paul:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Paul, you know we would never think of you in that way. Besides, you don't come in earth tones.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.



[/ QUOTE ]

PS - How presumptuous, bigshot! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[cowpie]

[ QUOTE ]
And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like an Internet troll. You don't have anything better to do than commenting on grammatical or spelling errors? Feel free to do so with my posts, english isn't my native language.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
You sound like an Internet troll. You don't have anything better to do than commenting on grammatical or spelling errors? Feel free to do so with my posts, english isn't my native language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the "don't you have anything better to do" from one twoplustwo poster to another; next I'll discover I'm the most huggable leper in the colony.

(What are the other varieties of troll?)

I apologize for any trollish tendencies but it's awfully tough to compete with this level of value-add (http://tinyurl.com/53zc6).

[River2Pair]

If the river is a likely scare card for both players, and your opponent has position and frequently bets scare cards if checked to him, then it might be good to bet so you aren't faced with a large bet, who would be difficult to call.

[whiskeytown]

ummm....

well, to be totally honest...I'm not entirely sure what the right answer is....and I don't have Paul Phillips win record, or a WSOP trophy...(though I have a BFG that will put a nice hole in a car engine block should need be)

I can think of only one decent reason why I would fire out a bet on the river..

1. - to show my cards (a bluff or weak hand) and establish a pattern in player's minds as to how I play. This is especially applicable in online poker, where I can't just turn the cards over and muck on the flop/turn, but must go to the river to show losing cards -

for example, I'll show 39 offsuit to show that I'm a bad/bluffing player, hence getting me action in later hands/rounds from weaker hands....

or perhaps I exhibit a continual pattern of betting flush draws...this makes the ones I don't bet later devestating to an observant player who thinks I may not have made a flush cause I didn't bet my 4 card draw - but I won't get a chance if I don't go to the river to show it -

this is only really applicable in online poker, and is really as applicable to limit as it is to NL poker, so I don't see how it's the correct answer for live play as I would imagine anyone could just show the cards as they muck them in a live game.

RB

[David Sklansky]

"I could take a stab at a serious answer but I'd rather make fun of the idea that there are exactly two answers to this question and one of them is "it's worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand." "

I'm not fond of that answer either but it does have a lot more plausibility to it than the way out answers you provided. I could even see making this bet myself for this reason in extreme circumstances.

Meanwhile rory and El Diablo were basically right except they could have been a little more precise. Perhaps someone else will be.

[cornell2005]

when a player will almost always bet the river big when checked to, but will never raise you on a bluff (or more precisely, a hand you beat). and your bet would be considerably smaller than his river bet if checked to.

[cowpie]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize for any trollish tendencies but it's awfully tough to compete with this level of value-add (http://tinyurl.com/53zc6).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooh, I made Paul Phillips angry enough to check my posts. And I thought you were a busy man. I get the feeling that you think you're one of the best players in the world, so I can imagine you sitting there at home complaining to your wife that ESPN and FSN didn't invite you to TOC and PSI.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Ooh, I made Paul Phillips angry enough to check my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I supposed to be angry? Sorry to say that the emotion involved in this timeless exchange has not been nearly so dramatic.

[ QUOTE ]
And I thought you were a busy man.

[/ QUOTE ]

...despite all evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
I get the feeling that you think you're one of the best players in the world, so I can imagine you sitting there at home complaining to your wife that ESPN and FSN didn't invite you to TOC and PSI.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's so cruel, playing to my insecurities like that! You said english is your second language; are "devastating barbs" your first? That must be a tough country you come from. You got me: oh what I would do to get some poker recognition. Having hit the nail on the head with such merciless precision, perhaps you could advise me how to achieve my dreams.

[Tosh]

When the opponent will bet based on game theory.

[Tosh]

Headsup battle? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cowpie]

[ QUOTE ]
You got me: oh what I would do to get some poker recognition. Having hit the nail on the head with such merciless precision, perhaps you could advise me how to achieve my dreams.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep buying those Phil Hellmuth books and chips and you'll learn how to play poker soon enough.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]


And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.



[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you ever read "A note about the English....." section of their books?

[Phishy McFish]

....and will be quite pleased if I find out it is the answer.

Could it be to slow down the aggressiveness of the other player? Say make a small(er) bet that the other player may call to avoid checking and having the other player make an even larger bet that you may be forced to call. You would do it if you feel the raise back would make it easy for you to give up the hand??

[Phishy McFish]

Who knew if I had tons of money and a budding poker career, that I'd still be on this forum being sarcastic to others.

Those is glass forums....should not throw stones at others for not having a life.

The rich guy makes a good point people......think about this for a while.....you're posting on an internet forum....possibly the apex of geek life as we know it. Should you really be critical of what others do with their time?

Now, if you'll excuse me, the dungeon master is calling and my Doom III game is locking up.

[cepstrum]

Hi David -

Without having read the other posts...

Is it when if you don't bet, your opponent will bluff with the correct frequency and number of chips, thus putting you in a spot where neither calling nor folding is a good option?

Good Luck

Cepstrum

[rjc199]

It is to encourage your opponent to be more inclined to call with lesser holdings next time you value bet the river.

After thinking about it for a while also I see how the opponent will react (basically the essence of the question). If you check the river to him after he has seen you value bet a thin hand, he will be more inclined to bluff and/or bet his marginal hands, thinking that you would have bet a mediocre hand so he thinks he is in the lead. You will generate more action from him this way when you are in the lead.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or I just heard the guy only has six months to live and I feel like throwing some expectation his way to boost his spirits.

I could take a stab at a serious answer but I'd rather make fun of the idea that there are exactly two answers to this question and one of them is "it's worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand."

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul, you are making these forums extremely entertaining.
Thanks!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be to slow down the aggressiveness of the other player? Say make a small(er) bet that the other player may call to avoid checking and having the other player make an even larger bet that you may be forced to call. You would do it if you feel the raise back would make it easy for you to give up the hand??

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a situation, not all that rare, where it is right to bet on the river even though there is no chance of getting a better hand to fold OR getting a worse hand to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[CrisBrown]

Paul,

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I could've posted this question on our Poker Theory or No Limit forums but since this forum is now attracting some bigshots that don't post elsewhere, I thought I'd pose it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?

And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.

[/ QUOTE ]

This forum really needs an <ignore> function for twits who want nothing more than an argument, any argument, whatever the topic, just so long as it's an argument.

For the record, David wasn't "looking for a quarter," either on 38th or 37th Avenues. He knew the answer. He was opening a topic for discussion.

For the record, redux, what you find on this or almost any other Internet forum is standard spoken English, and not standard written English. In SSE, "that" is both commonly used and commonly understood in this context. Whether it is "correct" -- by whatever grammatical preening one wishes to indulge -- is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of language is to communicate, and David communicated quite clearly.

You, on the other hand, seem to look for any opportunity to misread or criticize semantics rather than responding to the substance of a question or comment. That, as I said, makes me wish this forum had an <ignore> function.

Cris

[Jedi Flopper]

This type of bet can only be made when you do not mind a raise. In this situation, if you are raised, you can just release the hand. If he merely calls, then you get to see the showdown more cheaply than if you had to call his larger aggressive river bet.

[Phishy McFish]

So again...I suspect you bet "X" when you think that checking will result in your opponent betting 2x, 3x or more and put you in a worse spot AND by betting "X" it confuses or concerns your opponent enough that he only calls. If you win, you're happy with the pot AS IS and if you lose you're content that you didn't lose more.

[Dominic]

hey Cris...is it possible Paul was just being funny?

it's a thought...

[CrisBrown]

Hi Dominic,

[ QUOTE ]
hey Cris...is it possible Paul was just being funny?

it's a thought...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're asking whether it's possible that Paul was attempting to be funny, sure. If you're asking whether he was funny ... no, not to me. My impression, from reading his posts, is that he's a typically immature, pseudo-sophisticated young male who thinks the height of rhetoric is to post erudite but waspish commentary in the hope of starting an argument, from which he can then derive some entertainment and ego strokes from people who suck up to him because they've seen him on TV.

If he cares about that impression -- and I'm sure he doesn't -- and if he wants to change it, then he can boost the signal-to-noise ratio of his posts. If not, then in my opinion he's just another troll, albeit an iconic troll.

Cris

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
That, as I said, makes me wish this forum had an <ignore> function.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does, click on someone's name and there is an ignore user option in the bottom right of screen.

[CrisBrown]

Tosh,

Cool! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Thanks!!

Cris

[fnurt]

I assumed Paul was yanking David's chain since David is Mr. Perfect and all that.

Let the boys be boys. One good turn of arrogance probably deserves another anyway.

[Biffatitis]

[ QUOTE ]
One is when you feel it is worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, since two of the fellas got the other situation correct (although not quite precisely) I wanted to point out that I posed a similar scenario to the quote above in the Poker Theory section ("value of not showing your cards with a monster" thread). The question (this would apply to any non-structured limit game) as I worded it was as follows...

"Assume that you are heads up for the turn and river against an opponent and your read is good enough that you know that your hand is best. A typical strategy dictates that in this situation, you should maximise profit.

My question is this; if you believe you will be playing against this player (and most of the table) for hours to come how much should you overbet the river in order to be able to not show your cards at times and when you do have to showdown it was well worth it."

I am not thrilled with the way it is worded, but I think you get the idea.

After some banter I came up with my best attempt at a precise answer which follows...

"In order to answer this, you first need to estimate the equity you get from not showing your cards, then find the point on the equation of (bet * percentage of calls) where you are exactly your increased mucking equity (value of not showing your hand multiplied by the increase in percentage of laydowns by the opposition) below the optimal result of (bet * percentage of calls), right?"

(I added a bit there for clarity purposes)

My answer assumes that you can somewhat reliably estimate the value you get from not showing your cards and the percentage of calls per bet size that you are getting from your opponent. As innacurate as these estimates are likely to be, the only lesson I can really take from this question is that one should err on the high side of the optimal bet size in this situation because you would hate to cost yourself EV and have to show your cards more often.

[CrisBrown]

Hi David,

I'll take a stab at a more detailed version of what you've said was the correct answer. It would be correct to bet in this circumstance if:

(a) The pot is already large enough to justify the added risk of the bet. If it's a small pot, there isn't enough money to be won to justify risking more of your stack.

(b) Your opponent will not raise if you bet, but instead will merely call if he has a hand that beats you. If your opponent is capable of a bluff-raise here, and if you can't afford to call that bluff (see below), then you shouldn't put more of your stack out there to be stolen.

(c) If you check, your opponent might bluff with a weaker hand, and his bluff strategy coupled with your risk-of-ruin is such that you couldn't afford to call his bluff.

In a tournament, this might occur if your survival equity is greater than the added equity to be won in this pot. For example, if he could set you all-in, potentially ending your tournament, and you don't have a hand that is "worth dying on."

In a cash game, this might occur if you were in a situation where you couldn't reload (for whatever reason) and you can make more off of other players in other pots than you stand to lose in this one.

Close? Way off? Downright stupid?

Cris

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could've posted this question on our Poker Theory or No Limit forums but since this forum is now attracting some bigshots that don't post elsewhere, I thought I'd pose it here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?

And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.



[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't WE full of ourselves.

Win a WPT or 2, appear on a couple more, get a few bracelets, become a fan favorite on TV, make multi-millions in the tech sector, fool the masses of your true sexuality, and make a few brilliant insights, all te sudden you think YOU'RE the bigshot? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

He was obviously speaking of *moi* /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I, for one, am an ottoman.

The answer, of course, is when you have to get rid of all your small-denomination chips so as not to have to tip the waitress approaching with your drink. Just ask Mason...

[Willy]

"We'er not furniture."
Looks like Paul has classified himself as one of the "bigshots"

[Willy]

Fuzzy thinking. If I wanted you to find a quarter and knew you walked down 37th street, would i leave it on 38th street and hope you might walk down 38th as well?

[feelixthegreek]

As a university instructor of English, I have to say that I come to this forum seeking refuge from grammatical nitpicking. This is worse than work.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi David,

I'll take a stab at a more detailed version of what you've said was the correct answer. It would be correct to bet in this circumstance if:

(a) The pot is already large enough to justify the added risk of the bet. If it's a small pot, there isn't enough money to be won to justify risking more of your stack.

(b) Your opponent will not raise if you bet, but instead will merely call if he has a hand that beats you. If your opponent is capable of a bluff-raise here, and if you can't afford to call that bluff (see below), then you shouldn't put more of your stack out there to be stolen.

(c) If you check, your opponent might bluff with a weaker hand, and his bluff strategy coupled with your risk-of-ruin is such that you couldn't afford to call his bluff.

In a tournament, this might occur if your survival equity is greater than the added equity to be won in this pot. For example, if he could set you all-in, potentially ending your tournament, and you don't have a hand that is "worth dying on."

In a cash game, this might occur if you were in a situation where you couldn't reload (for whatever reason) and you can make more off of other players in other pots than you stand to lose in this one.

Close? Way off? Downright stupid?

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris,

I can't argue with the logic of what you said, but I still feel like we're not quite there yet. This goes back to Paul's point that if you're allowed to postulate any conditions you like, such as "my opponent frequently raises the river but always folds to a re-raise unless he has the nuts," you can come up with a lot of possible answers.

Saying that you have an opponent "who will never raise if you bet" sort of falls into that category of unrealistic conditions. Sure, there must be people like this, but can you really know that your opponent will never raise? What if he has the nuts? When David said this was not that uncommon a situation, I think he had in mind something more general.

Now, he did say this can only be an NL situation, which gives me the following thought. What if your bet puts your opponent all-in? Then it's impossible for him to raise you, and we're gotten there without assuming something unknowable about his personality.

But if we're prepared to bet that amount, it seems like we would do better in every case to simply check-call any bet, since we lose the same amount when we're beat but make extra money when we induce a bluff.

So I guess I haven't gotten us any further, I dunno. I just think if the ultimate answer ends up involving some hypothetical opponent who never ever raises, I don't think it's going to be very useful in a practical sense. And David promised us an "interesting" question, too!

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could've posted this question on our Poker Theory or No Limit forums but since this forum is now attracting some bigshots that don't post elsewhere, I thought I'd pose it here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?

And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.



[/ QUOTE ]

David Sklansky;
800 Math
430 Verbal

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]

We're not furniture.


[/ QUOTE ]
im a couch

[kmvenne]

I would have to think the idea that a river bet prevents a river bluff raise is erronious. Perhaps David feels that a river bet might add to the "value" of a river bluff from your opponent. Into a player clever enought to fire out a raise-bluff into you on the river given the right price, a bet that wouldn't extract any additional chips via a call may do so via a bluff. It would take a good understanding of your opponents tendencies, but happens a fair amount at all levels and venues of play. I know a decent amount of players scared enough by the river bet not to raise medium-to-strong holdings, but may well find themselves making a play at a pot with busted draws and holdings by no means worthy of a call.

And Paul, I want a quarter! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MDBLakers]

I say we settle this with an old fashion game of scrabble between Chris Brown and Paul Phillips. Reading their posts is like watching an episode of Dawson's Creek. The Vegas line is Paul Phillips at a 3 to 1 favorite. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Biffatitis]

I don't think its an opponent who never raises, but it may be an opponent who never raise bluffs.

[bobby rooney]

I guess the flip side of this is that if your opponent senses weakness in your bet, they might try to push you off the hand with a big raise. However, since it is common to try to "sell the hand" with a smaller bet on the end, it's hard for your opponent to know if you are weak or strong.

[Beavis68]

Yeah David, great idea not posting this in under poker theory or the NL section. This has been a great discusion. Paul's inputs have really changed how I see the game. It is "who" don't post, not "that" don't post. Man, these pro's have such INSIGHT! I bet he doesn't even have to stop and think about it, it just comes naturally to him.

[Toro]

I could be wrong Paul but I think your post was a combination of humor and good natured kidding. The reason I say this is because of your use of "Fuzzy Thinking". I don't think everyone here is aware that David used to have a column in Card Player magazine that had the title "Beware of Fuzzy Thinking" or something to that effect.

So when you said "Fuzzy Thinking" that was a clever lttle jab at Sklansky. Anyway, I got it and liked it. Keep posting and definitely stay edgy, its good for the Forum.

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, redux, what you find on this or almost any other Internet forum is standard spoken English, and not standard written English. In SSE, "that" is both commonly used and commonly understood in this context. Whether it is "correct" -- by whatever grammatical preening one wishes to indulge -- is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of language is to communicate, and David communicated quite clearly.


[/ QUOTE ]

But posting on an internet forum is, in fact, writing. The
purpose of communication is to convey information. When
speaking among peers, it is not only acceptable, but
expected, that people will speak in a language such that
the speaker's intentions and feelings are most clearly
understood. However, when writing, the English language has
a set of grammatical rules such that there should not be any
confusion or ambiguity about the meaning of whatever is
written. Clearly, nobody is going to misunderstand David's
sentence for using the word 'that' rather than 'who' and
Paul was simply being humorously picky. But arguing that
grammatical errors are acceptable in writing becaue it is
"standard spoke English" is erroneous. The grammatical
rules for writing are there because there is a variance
in the personalities and characteristics of the readers,
and this holds especially true for a public internet forum.

Anyhow, as for David's question, El Diablo and rory both
mentioned that it would be correct to bet in order to
prevent an opponent from making a bluff on the river large
enough that you cannot call. But the bet does not have to
be a bluff. It could be a bet from an opponent who thinks
that his hand is the best. There are many players who lack
such a fundamental understanding of the game that they
never consider the logical implications of betting or
checking. They simply have the mindset that they will bet
when they think they have the best hand, and check when they
are not sure where they are, or think they have the worst
hand. In other words, you may bet with the best hand to
keep a second best hand from making a bet large enough that
you must fold. This may occur when you are against an
opponent who has very little concept of proper betting size
(ie. someone who never takes the size of the pot into
consideration).

An example would be if you found yourself heads
up on the river with a large pair and a bad kicker against
someone with a probable worse pair. Perhaps you were in the
blind with something like J2 and flopped top pair. You bet,
and your opponent called. On the turn you both checked. On
the river, when an overcard to your jack hits, you might bet
to prevent your opponent from making a large bet with
something like bottom pair. An opponent like the one I
described above may bet thinking he has the best hand,
assuming you were bluffing on the flop. But if he bets
something like three or four times the size of the pot, you
will almost certainly be forced to fold. Keep in mind that
when you now make this bet, your opponent will be fairly
confident that his bottom pair is not good and will fold,
thus maintaining the condition that he will fold a worse
hand. He will also probably call with jacks or better, so
this condition is also met.

Another assumption in ansewring this question seems to be
that the situation has to be heads up. David's question
was stated in such a way that sounded as if the situation he
had in mind was heads up, but the same conditions can be
applied to multi way pots as well. Take the previous
example I just used, and add a third player who called
preflop from the small blind. Perhaps there were two clubs
on the flop. On the river, you are in the same situation,
just with an extra opponent who probably missed his flush
draw. Obviously, as the number of opponents in the pot
increases, the less inclined you should be to bet, as there
is a larger chance that your hand is beat. But a bet in
some of these situations would still be correct.

Finally, I want to mention one point that should be fairly
obvious, but may as well be added for the sake of
completeness. In order for a bet to be correct, there has
to be an opponent left to act behind you. Clearly, a bet
to prevent being bet off the best hand on the river does
nothing to help you if you could simply close the betting
with a check.

[ohgeetee]

I think you're projecting your frustration with the TOC thread onto this thread, because Paul has posted here as well.

I amf inding that a majority of poker players, or at least poker forum readers that claim to be poker players are very very bland and unimaginitive people who have a hard time thinking outside the box.

I don't think there was any question that Paul was making a friendly jab in response to a friendly jab(bigshots), but to many that have replied so far, including yourself, you act as if he called David's mom a whore or something.

If you've participated in 2+2 discussions for awhile, and have read at least one of the 2+2 books, you should be quite aware of how full of themselves both David and Mason are. This isn't to say they aren't intelligent and interesting people, but they are definitely full of themselves and aware of it.

Having it pointed out once in awhile is good for them IMO, and generally they both take it well. Searching some old RGP posts results in a good example of this.

To the other "poker players":

If you guys have the same lack of a sense of humor and at minimum a lack of sarcasm/wit detection skill at the table, I can't imagine poker being a fun game for you to be playing.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like Paul has classified himself as one of the "bigshots"

[/ QUOTE ]

No... it was David who classified him as such.

[CrisBrown]

Hi MDB,

[ QUOTE ]
I say we settle this with an old fashion game of scrabble between Chris Brown and Paul Phillips. Reading their posts is like watching an episode of Dawson's Creek. The Vegas line is Paul Phillips at a 3 to 1 favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take that action any day and twice on Sunday, for my entire bankroll. There is simply no way that Paul would be a 3:1 favorite over me in Scrabble. That's not to say he might not be a favorite -- who knows -- but 3:1? Nah. I'm a novelist, and words are my stock-in-trade.

Cris

[Richard Tanner]

"Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?"

This is just wrong. David didn't lose anything, he's trying to get some pros (the majority of whom seem to be on this part of the forum) to answer. A better analogy would be trying to read a map, and yes I would go where the lighting is better to read.

"I could take a stab at a serious answer but I'd rather make fun of the idea that there are exactly two answers to this question and one of them is "it's worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand." "

Well there has to be a better way to phase that, but I don't know. I love David's books, and will usually take anything he says to be truth (until proven otherwise), but I think I have to go with Paul here. Poker is too fluid to bolt down only two answers. The phasing of David's expalnation seems to broad. But maybe that's just me, I've been know to miss things from time to time. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Ulysses]

Right, I wrote "bluff", but really meant "bet" in my initial response.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take that action any day and twice on Sunday, for my entire bankroll. There is simply no way that Paul would be a 3:1 favorite over me in Scrabble. That's not to say he might not be a favorite -- who knows -- but 3:1? Nah.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much is your bankroll?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a novelist, and words are my stock-in-trade.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how little that has to do with high-level Scrabble play?

[Ed Miller]

But there is an exception to this rule in No Limit. There is a situation, not all that rare, where it is right to bet on the river even though there is no chance of getting a better hand to fold OR getting a worse hand to call. In other words if they call your bet you will lose. Actually there are two situations. One is when you feel it is worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand. But that is not what I am speaking of here. Littleshots are free to answer as well.

You're first to act, and if you checked, you'd call a relatively large bet. So instead you bet a smaller amount.

EDIT: Actually, the planning to call part isn't important. You're just as unhappy if someone makes a bet slightly too big to call as you are if he makes one slightly too small to fold. The point is to fix the bet size at one that is poor for your opponent.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I'll take that action any day and twice on Sunday, for my entire bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]


poor bankroll management cris

[Gewurtztraminer]

I would think that when the river card counterfeits your hand and has forced you to play the board would be one situation that would warrant a bet.

Gewürtztraminer

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a novelist, and words are my stock-in-trade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic, apparently, isn't. You just said that you'd beat a guy in Scrabble who uses the word "aspersion" by accident. After you get done challenging TRENAIL and QINTARS, and then complaining that ADE wasn't playable, talk about odds some more.

This does explain one thing, though: your tendency to create knowledge from nowhere and utilize it as fact is quite becoming of a novelist. You should meet that clown who wrote the "bot" article on MSNBC and learn about creating your own reference material, instead of just pulling it out of thin air.

~D

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
You're first to act, and if you checked, you'd call a relatively large bet. So instead you bet a smaller amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed, see my response re: blocking bet for why that's probably a less correct (though viable) answer in this situation.

[fnurt]

I can't really take sides on this without knowing El Diablo's educational background.

[Joseph Busti]

[ QUOTE ]
Or I just heard the guy only has six months to live and I feel like throwing some expectation his way to boost his spirits.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats just absurd.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't really take sides on this without knowing El Diablo's educational background.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.mexicanwrestlers.com/archive/000/bd.jpg


You want to argue?

[Nagoo81]

El Diablo doesn't back down from ANY CHALLENGE.

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pn25/eldiablo.jpg

(Think: Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!!)

[PokerSlut]

Does position matter in the case you're thinking about?

[DrSavage]

Before reading people's replies:
If you don't want to call a bet from your opponent which would be a larger amount that you want to commit you can bet the amount you wouldn't mind calling yourself. Like if you have a Q high flush on a 4 flush board you might underbet a pot significantly which would look like a milking bet, but you don't want to check and call because ace and king high flushes would bet a large amount and the bluffs may also be rather large, and you can safely fold to a raise.

[srblan]

I will often bet the river, even when I don't want a call as a setup play. In a max-$100 buy-in no-limit game, I will almost always make the same $40 bet (after I have doubled up at least once) on the river for a couple of reasons. I will have shown at least one bluff where I bet the same amount, and I will usually burn through at least one rack setting up a loose table image where I will try to throw the same (semi-poorly timed) bluff on the river for 40 bucks and then sheepishly turn over two rags when it gets caught. After the first rack or two, I tighten up and stop bluffing (well, not entirely...) since most of the players tend to be calling stations. When I make a hand like a medium flush, where normally a player would check-call, I have now created a value-betting situation. I created the $40 Pavlovian response, and now they feel like they are compelled to call the river bet, "just in case he's bluffing again." I had a guy call my $40 river bet with a pair of nines with no kicker when the flush hit and I came out firing...

Another possible use for a river bet with semi-weak holdings (useful in semi-weak games) is to represent a busted flush draw. Often, when the board has a pair, two of which are suited, I will gamble by simply calling the bets of someone betting the pair (not having the trips, but the other card in the middle), with the hope that the board does not pair again and that the flush doesn't come. If it doesn't it, and I push in, they will often put me on a busted flush draw trying to buy the pot. Now, I would be okay with them not calling, just in case they had the trips as well, with a higher kicker, since in a really strong game, that is usually the only type of caller you'd get. However, in a game where they are always trying to catch you stealing, you will often get called by a weak player holding a pair, figuring that you were on a flush draw and missed.

[PITTM]

as far as im aware, and this information came only from south park, when one person "serves" another and then is served back, as is the case, it is then on. looks like a paul phillips/cowpie breakdance competition!

rj

[burningyen]

Littleshot here. You would also bet the river to get an opponent who has the same hand as you to fold. E.g. if the board shows TT992 and you're confident you both have A-high. I'll keep trying to come up with the answer you were looking for.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Duke,

In response to the suggestion that Paul Phillips would be a 3:1 favorite to beat me in Scrabble, I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
There is simply no way that Paul would be a 3:1 favorite over me in Scrabble. That's not to say he might not be a favorite -- who knows -- but 3:1? Nah. I'm a novelist, and words are my stock-in-trade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duke replies:

[ QUOTE ]
Logic, apparently, isn't. You just said that you'd beat a guy in Scrabble who uses the word "aspersion" by accident. After you get done challenging TRENAIL and QINTARS, and then complaining that ADE wasn't playable, talk about odds some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading comprehension was apparently not your forte, to wit: "[t]hat's not to say he might not be a favorite...."

Before you discuss logic, try answering what people do say, instead of what you wish they said. Specifically, you might buy Practical Reasoning in Natural Language (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0136782698/qid=1096081600/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-5259667-7542229) and read the section on the "Strawman Fallacy." Then, once you've proven you can make a relevant counter-argument, you can talk to me about logic.

Cris

[ohgeetee]

You do realize that pointing out the usage of a logical fallacy as a counterargument rather than using what you know of the fallacy to explain why your argument is correct is extremely poor form, particularly when it is all that your argument consists of, don't you?

[daryn]

oh snap, no you didn't!

[Ezcheeze]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread yet so I'm not sure if someone has already posted this. If your opponent checks on the river and won't call a bet unless you are beat and won't fold a better hand but would check raise bluff or check-raise with a worse hand then betting could be correct depending on how frequently he does this.

-Ezcheeze

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
When your opponent is likely to bluff w/ a worse hand w/ a bet you can't call if you check.

[/ QUOTE ]

$1k pot, opponent will bet $1k 50% of the time with a bluff and 50% of the time with a good hand. You could lead out $500 and find out for $500 not $1000 whether your hand is the best. Or you could check/call the opponents bet:

(leading out) .5($1000) + .5(-$500) = $250.
(check/calling) .5($2000) + .5($1000) = $500.

Or a more marginal situation, $1k is in the pot, 70% chance opponent bets $1k with a good hand and 30% chance $1k bluff.

(check/calling) .7(-$1000) + .3($2000) = -$100
(leading out) .7(-$700) + .3($1000) = -$190

Though you save the $300 when you are beat, you lose $1000 when you call his bluff. The bet has to be lower to be profitable, to see where it becomes profitable solve .7(x) + .3($1000) = 0 and x comes out to be about $200 to be barely profitable. In practice though this $200 bet won't do much. Am I missing important cases?

[Duke]

You should take the bet, then. I stand corrected. No, really. It's a great bet for you. You're not an idiot at all.

~D

[Trebor the Mad Overlord]

[ QUOTE ]
Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. If the light is that bad on 37th, my $EV is close to $0.00. By going to the better lit 38th avenue, I might find someone else's quarter, and thus have a higher $EV.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ChrisW]

&gt; Meanwhile rory and El Diablo were basically right except
&gt; they could have been a little more precise. Perhaps
&gt; someone else will be.

Littleshot attempt:

If you are uncertain whether your hand is good, game theory shows that your opponent can show a profit by bluffing some percentage of times on the end regardless of your counter-strategy. However, if you bet on the end in an attempt to lower his expectancy (i.e. his calling with the winner yields a smaller return than his combination of value betting/bluffing when you check), your opponent may counter by occasionally bluff-raising the river. So, it is not necessarily profitable to lead at the pot just because you would have called a larger bet.

However, what if you know from your hand that your opponent does not hold the nuts? For example, you hold A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and the flop comes A /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. You bet the flop and are called. The 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif comes on the turn, and you choose to check, as does your opponent. Let's assume that you put your opponent on a draw for his check on the turn. Now the 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif comes. You know that your opponent cannot hold the nut flush, nor can he be sure that you don't have it. Therefore, if a decent opponent raises your river bet, he almost certainly has a busted straight draw; it would be silly for him to bet a small flush and give you an opportunity to reraise when you have the nut flush or are correctly bluffing. So, you would show a profit by betting a moderate amount [i]because you don't fear a river raise.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I could've posted this question on our Poker Theory or No Limit forums but since this forum is now attracting some bigshots that don't post elsewhere, I thought I'd pose it here.

It is an elementary precept of limit poker that you should not bet a decent hand, head up, on the river, if you know you won't get called unless you are beaten (unless of course there is some chance that bet will make an even better hand fold).

But there is an exception to this rule in No Limit. There is a situation, not all that rare, where it is right to bet on the river even though there is no chance of getting a better hand to fold OR getting a worse hand to call. In other words if they call your bet you will lose. Actually there are two situations. One is when you feel it is worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand. But that is not what I am speaking of here. Littleshots are free to answer as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I have not read all the posts here, but I have read enough to know the basic answer to the question has been stated.

I have a perfect example of this that came up in a home tourney I played two weeks ago. We were down to 3 out of 12 players. Blinds were 50/100. Button folded, I raised it up 100 in the SB with As9h. BB calls.

Flop: Qc9d4c. Check-Check. Turn was a 4h. I bet out 200, BB calls. Turn was the 2c. Obviously, this was not a card I liked. However, i bet out 300. Normally I would check and call here. However, I was somewhat familiiar with my opponent and he was the type of the that would either bluff or "value-bet" the river by going ALL-IN with or without the flush if I checked. So, in order to suppress his ability to bluff an amount so large that it would be difficult for me to call a bluff (he had about 2000 left and I had about 4500, but I wasn't going to call off 2000 with middle pair) I made a bet the size that I normally would make had I caught the flush here. I was sure that I had him beat unless the 2c helped him (either by giving him two pair, a set or a flush).

He called me down with Ks4s (very bad play IMO, but that's the type of player he is). You will also see this calling with about 10th best hand often in players who bluff a lot and they call a lot of value bets b/c they feel everyone else is always bluffing. I knew if he re-popped I could fold with confidence that I was beat. However, if I checked it and he pushed-in, it was 50/50 bluff or he had it.

One other thing that made this play feasible for me in this spot, when he had bluffed at pots by going all-in on previous occasions, it was never when someone else showed agression towards him. It was always when his opponent had shown weakenss.

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't you ever read "A note about the English....." section of their books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you mean the part where they excuse the fact that while they have no qualms about making money off the books, they aren't willing to spend a nickel on an editor to make them even slightly more readable?

Yeah, I really got the message there.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll take that action any day and twice on Sunday, for my entire bankroll. There is simply no way that Paul would be a 3:1 favorite over me in Scrabble. That's not to say he might not be a favorite -- who knows -- but 3:1? Nah.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much is your bankroll?


[/ QUOTE ]

[theBruiser500]

bump

My analysis shows that in practice this lead out bet is so small that it won't really work in practice. I would think someone has something to say to that...

[theBruiser500]

YO THIS IS IMPORTANT DUDES

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]


Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?

And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.

[ QUOTE ]



I find it vaguely amusing that I just read a post from a guy worth many millions of dollars being offended (mockingly or otherwise) that someone who is worth far less than that accidentally said "that" instead of "who," especially when that second person is a world-renowned best-selling author who, sadly, has problems in the ol' grammar department.

Priceless.*


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)


* Okay, with Paul's finances, I'm sure he could name a price. But it would be steep -- and involve a game of Scrabble.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Dominic,

[ QUOTE ]
hey Cris...is it possible Paul was just being funny?

it's a thought...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're asking whether it's possible that Paul was attempting to be funny, sure. If you're asking whether he was funny ... no, not to me. My impression, from reading his posts, is that he's a typically immature, pseudo-sophisticated young male who thinks the height of rhetoric is to post erudite but waspish commentary in the hope of starting an argument, from which he can then derive some entertainment and ego strokes from people who suck up to him because they've seen him on TV.

If he cares about that impression -- and I'm sure he doesn't -- and if he wants to change it, then he can boost the signal-to-noise ratio of his posts. If not, then in my opinion he's just another troll, albeit an iconic troll.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]



And that makes you, in turn, that guy trying to be cool since he can sit behind a computer and tell off the Big Name Person Who People Respect which will, in some way in your own mind, make your life seem meaningful since you can tell your buddies that you shot your mouth off at Paul Phillips.

Of course, now, in your mind, that makes me one of those people sucking up to Paul since I've seen him on TV.

That, or you should try to be a little more polite to people and less judgmental.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. If the light is that bad on 37th, my $EV is close to $0.00. By going to the better lit 38th avenue, I might find someone else's quarter, and thus have a higher $EV.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


The hookers are hotter on 38th anyway....

Or so I heard.

From a friend.

It's not my own personal recollection.

Honest.

Okay, moving along.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Moovyz]

I admit that I did not read all 85 posts before answering this, so if my answer is duplicating another, I apologize.

You would want to bet in a NL situation, especially in a tourney, anytime you would not want to have to defend against a bluff that could cost you your whole stack.

An example would be when you hold 2nd or 3rd nut hand. In limit you could only get called by a hand that beat you, all others would fold. But in NL, if you check an agressive player, especially if he/she had you out-chipped, might bluff enough that if you lost you would be knocked out, making it a tough call. But by betting, even a token bet, a bluffer may realize that you would then be pot comitted and not try it.

[Iconoclastic]

I don't know if anyone else has said this yet because I'm too lazy to read alla them but:

To give yourself a looser table image so that they will call your good hands more later on.